In a strong interim order, the Family Court at Pune restrained the wife from visiting the husband’s residence or disturbing his mental peace. The court recognised that repeated interference, threats, and unlawful conduct can seriously harm a husband and his family during pending matrimonial litigation.
MAHARASHTRA: This is a significant and instructive interim order passed by the Family Court No. 2, Pune, in Petition A No. 49-2025, where the court stepped in to protect the mental peace and safety of a husband and his family members during an ongoing matrimonial dispute.
The application was filed by the husband seeking restraint against his wife and her family members from entering his residential society, visiting his house, and disturbing the mental peace of him and his family. The order reflects how courts can and should act when harassment crosses legal limits.
The husband had already filed a main petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. Along with that petition, he approached the court with a specific grievance that after notice of the divorce proceedings was served, the wife began visiting his residential society repeatedly, creating scenes, damaging property, and causing serious disturbance to him, his family members, and even the children.
The husband clearly stated that after receiving the court notice, the wife lost her temper, refused to accept the notice, and thereafter started visiting his society frequently. According to him, she damaged the CCTV camera installed in the society and even took away the camera and its memory card, which came into her possession.
The husband further placed on record that the wife was residing at her parental home but continued to come unannounced to his residence and society, creating ruckus and threatening him. He stated that she threatened him to commit suicide and repeatedly rang the doorbell in a violent manner on a specific date.
The conduct, as pleaded, was not limited to verbal confrontation but extended to physical interference with security systems. It was brought to the notice of the court that she manually rotated and damaged CCTV cameras using a ladder, and when she realised that her acts were captured in another camera, she attempted to disconnect that camera as well.
The record also shows that the husband had no option but to seek police help. A police officer tried to counsel the wife, but she refused to listen and stated that she had taken legal advice to break open the door. Ultimately, after repeated police requests, she left the place.
Even thereafter, she continued to call the husband on his personal mobile phone and forced him to approach the police station again to lodge a report. The husband consistently asserted that these acts were causing severe mental stress to him, his family members, and were also adversely affecting the children.
On the other hand, the wife opposed the application and denied all allegations. She claimed that the husband had made false and baseless allegations and that the application itself was misconceived. She attempted to shift the focus by alleging that the husband was dominating in nature, addicted to liquor, and not allowing her to meet the children. She further alleged inappropriate conduct by the husband in the presence of the minor child and tried to justify her visits by stating that as a parent, she had a right to protect her children. She denied damaging the CCTV cameras and claimed that she was only adjusting them.
The Family Court heard both sides in detail and framed specific points for determination, including whether a prima facie case for injunction was made out, whether the balance of convenience lay in favour of the husband, and whether irreparable loss would be caused if injunction was not granted. On all these points, the court recorded findings in the affirmative.
After examining affidavits, documents, photographs, and police complaints placed on record, the court noted that the wife was not denying her visits to the husband’s society. The photographs on record prima facie showed her tampering with the CCTV camera. The court also took note of the fact that the husband had lodged a police report regarding damage to CCTV cameras and had also approached the Police Commissioner. It was admitted that divorce proceedings were already pending and that the wife was residing at her parental home.
The court made an important observation that although the wife has a right to meet her children, that right does not permit her to take the law into her own hands. The court clearly expected the wife to adopt legal remedies instead of approaching the husband’s residence and creating disturbance during pending litigation. It was specifically noted that creating ruckus and disturbing the peace of the household would naturally have an adverse impact on children and other family members.
During arguments, even the wife’s counsel submitted that there was no objection to granting injunction regarding disturbance, with the only concern being access to children. The court balanced these aspects and made it clear that while parental rights exist, they cannot be exercised in an unlawful or disruptive manner.
On the issue of balance of convenience, the court recorded that the husband was living with his family and children, and that repeated disturbances by the wife were causing him harm. The court observed that granting injunction would cause no loss to the wife, whereas refusing it would result in loss and mental harassment to the husband and his family members. The element of irreparable loss was therefore clearly in favour of the husband.
Finally, the court partly allowed the application and passed a clear restraining order. The wife was restrained from visiting the residence of the husband and from disturbing the mental peace of the husband and his family members in any manner. The court also directed the parties to bear their own costs.
This order is a quiet but powerful reminder that men are also entitled to peace, dignity, and protection under law. Matrimonial disputes do not give anyone a licence to harass, intimidate, or intrude into the private space of the other party. Courts are increasingly recognising that mental cruelty, unlawful interference, and misuse of access can cause real harm to husbands and their families, and such conduct deserves judicial restraint. The law does not support chaos; it supports lawful remedies, balance, and accountability on both sides.
Explanatory Table – Laws And Legal Principles Applied
| Law / Legal Principle | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Injunction (Civil Relief) | To prevent ongoing or threatened harm and maintain status quo | Court restrained Mrs XYZ from entering residence and disturbing mental peace |
| Prima Facie Case | To see if initial evidence supports relief | Court found documents, photos, and police reports sufficient |
| Balance of Convenience | To assess who will suffer more harm | Court held inconvenience was greater to Mr ABC if relief denied |
| Irreparable Loss | Harm that cannot be compensated later | Mental peace and family safety considered irreparable |
| Parental Rights vs Lawful Conduct | To balance child access with legality | Court held access rights do not justify unlawful acts |
| Police Complaint as Supporting Evidence | To corroborate allegations | Police reports supported petitioner’s version |
| Mental Cruelty | Protection from psychological harassment | Court acknowledged repeated disturbance causes mental cruelty |
Case Details
- Case Title: Mr ABC vs Mrs XYZ
- Court: Family Court No. 2, Pune
- Case Number: Petition A No. 49 of 2025
- Application: Order Below Exhibit 12 (Application for Injunction)
- Date of Order: 02 January 2026
- Judge: K. V. Thakur
- Husband Was Counselled By: Mr Shonee Kapoor (Men’s Rights Activist)
Key Takeaways
- Men are legally entitled to protection from harassment, even when matrimonial cases are pending.
- Parental rights cannot be used as an excuse to disturb or intimidate a husband and his family.
- Mental cruelty and repeated interference are valid grounds for court intervention in favour of men.
- Police complaints, CCTV evidence, and documented conduct matter and are taken seriously by courts.
- This order reinforces that men do not have to silently tolerate chaos, threats, or unlawful intrusion to prove innocence or patience.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.